Cornell vs. OSU Postgame

[scoop85]

Well, now at least I was able to clear space on the DVR :-/.  

Not much good to say about this one.  Jack Emmer seemed to hit it on the head when he said it seemed as if OSU had 7 defensemen on the field.

I know we have a young team, but I am concerned that today we looked so overmatched and were dominated athletically.  I hope we can chalk it up to "one of those days."

As an aside, could the play-by-play guy have been any more clueless?  Do some research, man!  Emmer was good, except when he kept calling Jake Myers "Matt."

I know that I, and probably most followers of the Big Red, have assumed that Martinez would be handed the No. 1 goaltending job next year.  While it's hard to make too much of today, Harer certainly was superior to Martinez.  It will be interesting to see how that shakes out.

Given the improvement in the rest of the Ivies, next year will be tough sledding.  But that's why they play the games.

[Beeeej]

It's really kind of sobering when the best thing you can say about the team is that they didn't spontaneously combust on national television.

[billhoward]

[quote Beeeej]It's really kind of sobering when the best thing you can say about the team is that they didn't spontaneously combust on national television.[/quote]
One could also say we looked okay in the second half.

And we should be thankful that Comcast customers were spared the spectacle entirely.

[Rita]

Did anyone else watching lax ESPNU mentally start chanting "You can't spell" when they flashed the "Road to Foxborough" promo? I saw it during the Navy-UNC game.

I haven't been in New England for years, so I checked on Google and it is still apparently Foxboro.

[ebilmes]

I left early. This was an ugly game to watch. Cornell was completely outplayed on their home field.

Not sure how you fail to stop the goalie on an end-to-end rush. It's bad enough in hockey if some guy is allowed to waltz in past 2-3 skaters and score, but this was a terrible way to start the game.

Myers had (by my count) one save when he was pulled. After two more goals (on two shots), he was back in. Goaltending like that gave Cornell zero chance to win this game, even if the offense was there.

What happened -- was the Cornell team distracted due to finals? Tough way to end the season. Let's hope our young team looks a little more seasoned this time next year.

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote Rita]Did anyone else watching lax ESPNU mentally start chanting "You can't spell" when they flashed the "Road to Foxborough" promo? I saw it during the Navy-UNC game.

I haven't been in New England for years, so I checked on Google and it is still apparently Foxboro.[/quote]
Well, maybe not, Rita: http://www.townfoxborough.us/ **]

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote ebilmes]Myers had (by my count) one save when he was pulled. After two more goals (on two shots), he was back in. Goaltending like that gave Cornell zero chance to win this game, even if the offense was there.
[/quote]
12 OSU goals vs. 2 Cornell saves up to the point when Harer entered the game.

[billhoward]

Very faint comfort. Cornell was ahead in most every statistic:

Shots 37-29
Ground balls 31-27
Face-offs 16-9
Fewer failed clears 3 vs 4 (Cornell 14x18, OSU 24x28)
Extra man offense 2x5 vs 1x4
Second-half scoring 5-4

... but 7 saves out of 22 shots on net. Ouch.

[mnagowski]

I made the trek to Ithaca today.

It was a beautiful day for a sporting event, I got a lot of much needed Vitamin D, and the view from the Crescent is spectacular, as always.

Our defense was non-existent, while tOSU's ride was vicious. And I look forward to them beating Duke next week.

[FarEastLax]

I didn't get to see the game.  If you take a look at the general stats (without seeing the score), you would expect that we won the game.  What the hell happened?  

Being down 11-2 at halftime in a home playoff game is downright ghastly.  I know Ohio State is good, but I didn't think they were that good.  And I know we can play poorly at times, but we're not that bad.  

If you look back at the last several years, there have been very few if any games in which we haven't even been competitive.  I thought we seemed to be finally coming together a bit after the Brown and Hobart games.  I guess not.  Today's game was a real clanger.      

On the bright side, what a game by Glynn: 13 of 19 faceoffs along with two goals and two assists.  There's one guy at least that showed up.  And, all in all, a good year in light of our experience and skill levels.  We seemed to be clearly outmanned in the Syracuse, Carolina and Ohio State games this year, so there is plenty to work on for 2009.  We badly need help in the goaltending department; that's the key place to start.  And some fundamentals on offense also need work: off-ball movement; passing accuracy; not relying on Glynn and Siebald too much; etc.

Let's hope we can build on this for a better 2009.

[ugarte]

I expected less from the season but more from this game. This team lost so much to graduation last year. I suppose what I remain most disappointed about is the defense in the last 10 seconds of the semifinal last year...

[Swampy]

[quote ebilmes]
Not sure how you fail to stop the goalie on an end-to-end rush. It's bad enough in hockey if some guy is allowed to waltz in past 2-3 skaters and score, but this was a terrible way to start the game.
[/quote]

I didn't watch the game and only saw this play as the #1 play of the day on ESPN's top-10 (ouch!). Nonetheless, in theory one of our attackmen is supposed to ride the goalie and make him pass off. The other attackmen and middies are supposed to cover their open defensemen and middies, making the furthest middie or the defender closest to their goal the open man. If their goalie beats the attackman who's covering the goalie,then another defender should slide over to pick the goalie up, and the beaten defender should be recovering to help double-team the goalie.

The theory is that passing and catching in lacrosse are more difficult and have more potential for mistakes than cradling and running.

That said, OSU's speed was evident on the video of their game against UNC. Although lacrosse is the "fastest game on two feet," not all teams are equally capable of handling raw speed. Obviously, for this game, Cornell was one of those less capable.

[billhoward]

[quote ugarte]I expected less from the season but more from this game.[/quote]

Amen. You have a way with few words.

[Hillel Hoffmann]

That was one of the worst losses in Cornell lacrosse history. One of those epic losses that sometimes signal a paradigm shift in a program. Maybe the best response is a list.

CORNELL LACROSSE'S MOST CATASTROPHIC, PORTENTOUS LOSSES (post-Ned, pre-2008)[/u]
(blowouts only; no close games or expected losses)

6. Harvard (12) at Cornell (4), 1969
GRIM QUESTION: Hey, Ned ate Ivy teams for breakfast. Does this Moran guy really have what it takes?
VERDICT: Yes.

5. Cornell ( at Syracuse (17), 1983
GRIM QUESTION: Whoa, a team from Central New York loaded with local talent just totally kick our undefeated booty. Are we not top dog Upstate any more?
VERDICT: Sorry, but yes. Cornell would suffer far worse blowouts at the hands of Syracuse in the coming years, but it was this one that heralded the power shift.

4. Cornell (7) at Pennsylvania (19), 1988
GRIM QUESTION: Wait a minute, I thought we had a friggin' All-America goalie. This makes us 0-3 in the Ivies. That's not supposed to happen to a team that came within a goal of winning the national championship last season. I know Penn is good this year, but was last year a total fluke?
VERDICT: Nope. They soon rebounded, went on a winning streak (fueled by the greatest string of individual performances by a goalie in NCAA history), and joined Penn in the final four.

3. Hobart (23) at Cornell (11), 1986
GRIM QUESTION: You have to expect the occasional loss to Hobart given the quality of their program (and given that we just lost by 15 to Syracuse a week and a half ago), but to give up 23 at home is ridiculous. Syracuse has already eclipsed us; are we about to get passed by our old friends in Geneva too?
VERDICT: Nope, Cornell would win the next three games in the series.

2. Cornell (4) at Georgetown (14), 2004
GRIM QUESTION: The worst performance I've seen by any Cornell team in any Cornell sport. I thought the program was on the rise. It's nice to be competitive in the Ivies again, but will Cornell ever have what it takes to beat the big boys on the national scene again?
VERDICT: Yes.

1. Princeton (12) at Cornell (2), 1991
GRIM QUESTION: Holy shit, that was the most lopsided home less I've ever seen (despite the relatively modest 10-goal margin). I've never even heard of most of those Princeton guys, and yet the Tigers seemed so much more talented, deep and disciplined than Cornell. I've got a bad feeling about this. Does this signal the end of Cornell's long period of Ivy dominance in the Moran period?
VERDICT: Yup. And how. It would take more than a decade to recover.

So where does last weekend's loss fit? Hard to say. It was as much of a systemic meltdown as the No. 1 and 2 games on this list, and there was the same sinking feeling that there was a significant talent gap (in the area of team speed and stick skills, for example). The grim question, of course, is: "I know this team is inexperienced and the goalie play has declined, but this was far more of a mismatch than I ever could have imagined. Maybe last year was a fluke. In this age of early recruiting, can Cornell ever become a perennial Final Four team again?" Verdict: Undetermined.

[scoop85]

[quote Hillel Hoffmann]That was one of the worst losses in Cornell lacrosse history. One of those epic losses that sometimes signal a paradigm shift in a program. Maybe the best response is a list.

CORNELL LACROSSE'S MOST CATASTROPHIC, PORTENTOUS LOSSES (post-Ned, pre-2008)[/u]
(blowouts only; no close games or expected losses)

6. Harvard (12) at Cornell (4), 1969
GRIM QUESTION: Hey, Ned ate Ivy teams for breakfast. Does this Moran guy really have what it takes?
VERDICT: Yes.

5. Cornell ( at Syracuse (17), 1983
GRIM QUESTION: Whoa, a team from Central New York loaded with local talent just totally kick our undefeated booty. Are we not top dog Upstate any more?
VERDICT: Sorry, but yes. Cornell would suffer far worse blowouts at the hands of Syracuse in the coming years, but it was this one that heralded the power shift.

4. Cornell (7) at Pennsylvania (19), 1988
GRIM QUESTION: Wait a minute, I thought we had a friggin' All-America goalie. This makes us 0-3 in the Ivies. That's not supposed to happen to a team that came within a goal of winning the national championship last season. I know Penn is good this year, but was last year a total fluke?
VERDICT: Nope. They soon rebounded, went on a winning streak (fueled by the greatest string of individual performances by a goalie in NCAA history), and joined Penn in the final four.

3. Hobart (23) at Cornell (11), 1986
GRIM QUESTION: You have to expect the occasional loss to Hobart given the quality of their program (and given that we just lost by 15 to Syracuse a week and a half ago), but to give up 23 at home is ridiculous. Syracuse has already eclipsed us; are we about to get passed by our old friends in Geneva too?
VERDICT: Nope, Cornell would win the next three games in the series.

2. Cornell (4) at Georgetown (14), 2004
GRIM QUESTION: The worst performance I've seen by any Cornell team in any Cornell sport. I thought the program was on the rise. It's nice to be competitive in the Ivies again, but will Cornell ever have what it takes to beat the big boys on the national scene again?
VERDICT: Yes.

1. Princeton (12) at Cornell (2), 1991
GRIM QUESTION: Holy shit, that was the most lopsided home less I've ever seen (despite the relatively modest 10-goal margin). I've never even heard of most of those Princeton guys, and yet the Tigers seemed so much more talented, deep and disciplined than Cornell. I've got a bad feeling about this. Does this signal the end of Cornell's long period of Ivy dominance in the Moran period?
VERDICT: Yup. And how. It would take more than a decade to recover.

So where does last weekend's loss fit? Hard to say. It was as much of a systemic meltdown as the No. 1 and 2 games on this list, and there was the same sinking feeling that there was a significant talent gap (in the area of team speed and stick skills, for example). The grim question, of course, is: "I know this team is inexperienced and the goalie play has declined, but this was far more of a mismatch than I ever could have imagined. Maybe last year was a fluke. In this age of early recruiting, can Cornell ever become a perennial Final Four team again?" Verdict: Undetermined.[/quote]

As always from Hillel, wonderful anylsis and historical insight.  I too was alarmed at the apparent skill and athleticism gap, but the jury is certainly out on that (after all, we did beat Navy who had beaten these guys).